lichess.org
Donate

Did the Soviets Collude Against Bobby Fischer?

@tpr

"In Zürich 1953 Bronstein wrote he was ordered that he must win his game against Reshevsky."

Is telling people to win their games collusion? Would it be collusion if the Soviets told Petrosian to win against Fischer? Bronstein did say "It was an order! There was nothing to be done, and contrary to my habit, for five hours I did not get up from the board – I displayed my zeal", but he wasn't threatened with consequences if he didn't win.

"It is plausible that also orders to draw or to lose were given."

According to Bronstein, they tried to persuade Keres to draw his game against Bronstein: "At any event, the “triumvirate” decided to act. They summoned Keres to the shore of the Zurich lake and over the course of three hours tried to pursuade him to make a quick draw with white against Smyslov, so that in the next round the latter would be able to assail Reshevsky with all his might (I was told this that same eveniing by Tolush, Keres's second)". https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-zurich-1953.

Also Bronstein said that he was told to draw against Geller: "“A draw, and a quick one,” Postnikov cut me short. “We have just received a coded telegram from [Moscow]: 'Play between the Soviet participants is to cease.' Do you understand?”

Averbakh gave his opinion on Bronstein:
Averbakh: I heard this story about Bronstein, that they told him Geller will make a draw with him, and they did not tell Geller, and Geller won the game against Bronstein. I doubt this is a real story.

TK: So you do not agree with Bronstein’s view of the
tournament? He has described it as ‘a splinter in his heart,’ as something that bothered his conscience. Do you not agree with his interpretation of the events there?

YA: Not completely. No, because I have known Bronstein so long. Sometimes, for instance, he may speak about his match with Botvinnik, and he says he did not want to win this match, or some such thing. He may not be truthful every time. I cannot say, or course, exactly how much, but what he says is not 100% true, about anything, really. This is my experience based on many contacts with him." (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033873 comment section, User: Everett)

It seems that Bronstein is the only one talking. One source for a claim is not the best proof that something happened. But note if this happened that they are not forcing Soviets to throw their games, only trying to persuade them to draw.

"The Smyslov-Keres and Bronstein-Keres games are suspicious to say the least."

"This game in Zürich 1953 excels by struggle without compromise. Paul Petrowitsch absolutely wanted to win, since with a victory he would have taken the leadership in the tournament. Thus he played with huge pressure against my king, and I had to defend exactly. During the game, at the decisive moment, I pondered almost one hour on whether to accept his rook-sacrifice or not. Since I could not exactly foresee the complications, eventually I intuitively declined, and made an intermediate move, which gave me counter-play. Paul still could have had a draw, but not more. Finally he lost since my counter attack became to strong. This game had a high level. For me this tournament, which belongs to the strongest in chess history, was the best tourney of my career, the climax of my creative production in chess." - Smyslov https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072466&kpage=1 (in the comment section, by user: sucaba).

"If there is any source, then it must be some form of complaint by Fischer to to arbiter."

This is exactly right, I could not find any information on complaints in the tournament by Fischer. Without any evidence we cannot just assume something happened (particularly when it is not corroborated by anyone else).

"Benko was playing, so was Korchnoi" * Then they could not hear it."

Have a look at this photo from the candidates. You can see Fischer at the left back. The other players are only meters away. https://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MACRINUS/phpvTuior.jpeg.

"Anyway, the fact that Fischer wrote the article, that he never ever played a Candidates' Tournament, and that FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right."

  1. "The fact that Fischer wrote the article" - So if Bobby Fischer says anything, then it means he's automatically right. The whole point of the blog post was to analyze his claims.

  2. "FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right" - No it doesn't, I already showed why Fischer wasn't right in the blog post. FIDE's motivation may have been to induce Fischer to play, and/or to stop tournament leaders from sitting on their points by playing quick draws (as Petrosian, Geller and Keres did).

@tpr "In Zürich 1953 Bronstein wrote he was ordered that he must win his game against Reshevsky." Is telling people to win their games collusion? Would it be collusion if the Soviets told Petrosian to win against Fischer? Bronstein did say "It was an order! There was nothing to be done, and contrary to my habit, for five hours I did not get up from the board – I displayed my zeal", but he wasn't threatened with consequences if he didn't win. "It is plausible that also orders to draw or to lose were given." According to Bronstein, they tried to persuade Keres to draw his game against Bronstein: "At any event, the “triumvirate” decided to act. They summoned Keres to the shore of the Zurich lake and over the course of three hours tried to pursuade him to make a quick draw with white against Smyslov, so that in the next round the latter would be able to assail Reshevsky with all his might (I was told this that same eveniing by Tolush, Keres's second)". https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-zurich-1953. Also Bronstein said that he was told to draw against Geller: "“A draw, and a quick one,” Postnikov cut me short. “We have just received a coded telegram from [Moscow]: 'Play between the Soviet participants is to cease.' Do you understand?” Averbakh gave his opinion on Bronstein: Averbakh: I heard this story about Bronstein, that they told him Geller will make a draw with him, and they did not tell Geller, and Geller won the game against Bronstein. I doubt this is a real story. TK: So you do not agree with Bronstein’s view of the tournament? He has described it as ‘a splinter in his heart,’ as something that bothered his conscience. Do you not agree with his interpretation of the events there? YA: Not completely. No, because I have known Bronstein so long. Sometimes, for instance, he may speak about his match with Botvinnik, and he says he did not want to win this match, or some such thing. He may not be truthful every time. I cannot say, or course, exactly how much, but what he says is not 100% true, about anything, really. This is my experience based on many contacts with him." (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033873 comment section, User: Everett) It seems that Bronstein is the only one talking. One source for a claim is not the best proof that something happened. But note if this happened that they are not forcing Soviets to throw their games, only trying to persuade them to draw. "The Smyslov-Keres and Bronstein-Keres games are suspicious to say the least." "This game in Zürich 1953 excels by struggle without compromise. Paul Petrowitsch absolutely wanted to win, since with a victory he would have taken the leadership in the tournament. Thus he played with huge pressure against my king, and I had to defend exactly. During the game, at the decisive moment, I pondered almost one hour on whether to accept his rook-sacrifice or not. Since I could not exactly foresee the complications, eventually I intuitively declined, and made an intermediate move, which gave me counter-play. Paul still could have had a draw, but not more. Finally he lost since my counter attack became to strong. This game had a high level. For me this tournament, which belongs to the strongest in chess history, was the best tourney of my career, the climax of my creative production in chess." - Smyslov https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072466&kpage=1 (in the comment section, by user: sucaba). "If there is any source, then it must be some form of complaint by Fischer to to arbiter." This is exactly right, I could not find any information on complaints in the tournament by Fischer. Without any evidence we cannot just assume something happened (particularly when it is not corroborated by anyone else). "Benko was playing, so was Korchnoi" * Then they could not hear it." Have a look at this photo from the candidates. You can see Fischer at the left back. The other players are only meters away. https://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MACRINUS/phpvTuior.jpeg. "Anyway, the fact that Fischer wrote the article, that he never ever played a Candidates' Tournament, and that FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right." 1. "The fact that Fischer wrote the article" - So if Bobby Fischer says anything, then it means he's automatically right. The whole point of the blog post was to analyze his claims. 2. "FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right" - No it doesn't, I already showed why Fischer wasn't right in the blog post. FIDE's motivation may have been to induce Fischer to play, and/or to stop tournament leaders from sitting on their points by playing quick draws (as Petrosian, Geller and Keres did).

"Is telling people to win their games collusion?" * No, but it is interference. If there are team orders to win (which seems absurd: of course a player tries to win, so it is rather a team order not to accept or offer any draws), then it is only plausible that there may also be team orders to draw or lose.

The suspicious games are these:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033875
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072465
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072466

"The other players are only meters away." * But still, they surely were not shouting.

"if Bobby Fischer says anything, then it means he's automatically right." * He did not only say, but write, and the magazine accepted to publish. The German quality periodical Der Spiegel even sort of reprinted the German translation.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/schacher-im-schach-a-e8c50522-0002-0001-0000-000045123575?context=issue
His decision not to play any Candidates' Tournaments anymore must have been a hard decision for him to take.

Jan Timman in 'Curacao 1962 - The Battle of Minds that Shook the Chess World' found Fischer's allegations true.
https://www.newinchess.com/curacao-1962

"I already showed why Fischer wasn't right" * Well you found no evidence, but that does not prove he was not right.

"Is telling people to win their games collusion?" * No, but it is interference. If there are team orders to win (which seems absurd: of course a player tries to win, so it is rather a team order not to accept or offer any draws), then it is only plausible that there may also be team orders to draw or lose. The suspicious games are these: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033875 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072465 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072466 "The other players are only meters away." * But still, they surely were not shouting. "if Bobby Fischer says anything, then it means he's automatically right." * He did not only say, but write, and the magazine accepted to publish. The German quality periodical Der Spiegel even sort of reprinted the German translation. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/schacher-im-schach-a-e8c50522-0002-0001-0000-000045123575?context=issue His decision not to play any Candidates' Tournaments anymore must have been a hard decision for him to take. Jan Timman in 'Curacao 1962 - The Battle of Minds that Shook the Chess World' found Fischer's allegations true. https://www.newinchess.com/curacao-1962 "I already showed why Fischer wasn't right" * Well you found no evidence, but that does not prove he was not right.

@tpr

"If there are team orders to win (which seems absurd: of course a player tries to win, so it is rather a team order not to accept or offer any draws), then it is only plausible that there may also be team orders to draw or lose."

Bronstein himself in that excerpt never claimed that a Soviet player was told to lose. He did however claim that some Soviets were pressured to draw. Also, in this case, it wasn't exactly a team order, as only individual players seemed to pressured into drawing (and not pressured into outright throwing the game).

Regarding the games, I'm interested to know what are the suspicious facts about them.

"The other players are only meters away." * But still, they surely were not shouting."

So you're telling me that the players could not hear Soviets discussing moves meters away from them? What does shouting have to do with anything? You can't seriously be suggesting that in that image, Benko would not be able to hear Soviet's discussing the moves in Fischer's presence.

images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MACRINUS/phpvTuior.jpeg

"His decision not to play any Candidates' Tournaments anymore must have been a hard decision for him to take."

It may have been quite hard for him, but this wouldn't be evidence that the Soviets colluded. It's just evidence that Fischer believed that the Soviets colluded.

"Jan Timman in 'Curacao 1962 - The Battle of Minds that Shook the Chess World' found Fischer's allegations true."

Other people found the allegations not true. Whether it's true depends on the evidence, not someone's opinion.

You stated : "Anyway, the fact that Fischer wrote the article, that he never ever played a Candidates' Tournament, and that FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right."

You are implying that the mere fact that Fischer wrote the article, supports the idea that Fischer was right.

"Well you found no evidence, but that does not prove he was not right."

'I found no evidence that tpr is the greatest chess player in the world, but that does not prove that tpr isn't the greatest chess player in the world'.

I analyzed four claims Bobby Fischer made in my blog post. Do you have any refutation other than the fallacy you wrote above?

@tpr "If there are team orders to win (which seems absurd: of course a player tries to win, so it is rather a team order not to accept or offer any draws), then it is only plausible that there may also be team orders to draw or lose." Bronstein himself in that excerpt never claimed that a Soviet player was told to lose. He did however claim that some Soviets were pressured to draw. Also, in this case, it wasn't exactly a team order, as only individual players seemed to pressured into drawing (and not pressured into outright throwing the game). Regarding the games, I'm interested to know what are the suspicious facts about them. "The other players are only meters away." * But still, they surely were not shouting." So you're telling me that the players could not hear Soviets discussing moves meters away from them? What does shouting have to do with anything? You can't seriously be suggesting that in that image, Benko would not be able to hear Soviet's discussing the moves in Fischer's presence. images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MACRINUS/phpvTuior.jpeg "His decision not to play any Candidates' Tournaments anymore must have been a hard decision for him to take." It may have been quite hard for him, but this wouldn't be evidence that the Soviets colluded. It's just evidence that Fischer believed that the Soviets colluded. "Jan Timman in 'Curacao 1962 - The Battle of Minds that Shook the Chess World' found Fischer's allegations true." Other people found the allegations not true. Whether it's true depends on the evidence, not someone's opinion. You stated : "Anyway, the fact that Fischer wrote the article, that he never ever played a Candidates' Tournament, and that FIDE changed from Candidates' Tournament to Candidates' Matches supports Fischer was right." You are implying that the mere fact that Fischer wrote the article, supports the idea that Fischer was right. "Well you found no evidence, but that does not prove he was not right." 'I found no evidence that tpr is the greatest chess player in the world, but that does not prove that tpr isn't the greatest chess player in the world'. I analyzed four claims Bobby Fischer made in my blog post. Do you have any refutation other than the fallacy you wrote above?

#13
"I'm interested to know what are the suspicious facts about them."
Bronstein - Keres: black plays Rb8-Ra8-Rb8 as if the rook were a pendulum. Giving 2 tempi as black...
Smyslov-Keres: a clear mistake on move 10 in a theoretically well-known position
Keres-Smyslov: a clearly unfounded attack

'I found no evidence that tpr is the greatest chess player in the world, but that does not prove that tpr isn't the greatest chess player in the world'. * I would not claim that and neither Chess World nor Der Spiegel would be willing to publish that. Timman would not agree either.

On the claim about Soviets discussing Fischer's game, Fischer mentions he made several complaints. So these complaints must be recorded in the arbiter's report.

I dislike your use of the word fallacy. I discuss in good faith. Please do so too.

#13 "I'm interested to know what are the suspicious facts about them." Bronstein - Keres: black plays Rb8-Ra8-Rb8 as if the rook were a pendulum. Giving 2 tempi as black... Smyslov-Keres: a clear mistake on move 10 in a theoretically well-known position Keres-Smyslov: a clearly unfounded attack 'I found no evidence that tpr is the greatest chess player in the world, but that does not prove that tpr isn't the greatest chess player in the world'. * I would not claim that and neither Chess World nor Der Spiegel would be willing to publish that. Timman would not agree either. On the claim about Soviets discussing Fischer's game, Fischer mentions he made several complaints. So these complaints must be recorded in the arbiter's report. I dislike your use of the word fallacy. I discuss in good faith. Please do so too.